Re: .99999... still=/= 1
twisted_snakes_at_yahoo.com
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: N. Silver: "Re: Amazing story - Roulette Scanning"
- Previous message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: twisted_snakes_at_yahoo.com: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Reply: twisted_snakes_at_yahoo.com: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Dec 2004 18:41:20 -0800
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20041205112356.06084.00000875@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> So in both cases, the original debate was does,
> .999... equal to 1 and it DOESN'T. It converges to 1, which means an
> approximate nearest value to, is reached.
How that "approximate nearest value" is reached?
> To SUM .999..., the TOTAL value would be used and it would have to converge to
> 1, for it to equal 1.
What means "the TOTAL value"?
How many values have one number?
- Next message: N. Silver: "Re: Amazing story - Roulette Scanning"
- Previous message: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- In reply to: S. Enterprize Company: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Next in thread: twisted_snakes_at_yahoo.com: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Reply: twisted_snakes_at_yahoo.com: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]